Review Criteria

Your review will begin with these four specific questions with drop-down options. We also ask you to upload or paste in a full formal review.

Is the paper significant and convincing?

Yes, the science is at the forefront of the discipline

Yes, the paper is a significant contribution and worthy of prompt publication.

The paper has some unclear or incomplete reasoning but will likely be a significant contribution with revision and clarification. There are major errors or gaps in the paper but it could still become significant with major changes, revisions, and/or additional data.

No, the paper is not obviously a significant advance or contribution.

No, the paper is not strong and/or not appropriate for this journal.

Do the methods, data, and analysis support the conclusions?

Yes

Mostly yes, but some further information and/or data are needed.

No

Is the referencing appropriate?

Yes

Mostly yes, but some additions are necessary.

No

Is the presentation high quality?

Yes, it is well-written, logically organized, and the figures and tables are appropriate.

The organization of the manuscript and presentation of the data and results need some improvement.

No, the writing, organization, and illustration make it too difficult to review.

We ask that reviewers do the following to ensure compliance with AGU’s Data Policy, which requires authors to include information on data availability regarding the paper.

Read each Acknowledgments section carefully to verify that ALL data used in the research have been included

Check any hyperlinks that have been provided in the Acknowledgments to verify the accessibility of data

Report any failure to comply with the data policy when submitting a review or making a recommendation to the editor

Please be sure that your formal review addresses the main claims and methodology of the paper. You may also wish to consider these questions when writing your formal review. Answering them is not required.

Is this paper appropriate for the journal?

Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the evidence presented? That is, are the assumptions valid, is the methodology sound, is the evidence adequate, and do the conclusions logically follow?

Are the key points written clearly, and do they accurately reflect the main points of the paper?

Does this paper put the progress it reports in the context of existing published work? Is there adequate referencing and introductory discussion?

Is the paper clearly and concisely written?

Are all parts of the text, references, graphics and tables necessary for the new results and main points to be understood?

Are the conclusions and potential impacts of the paper clear?

Does the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the paper and state the main results? Can the abstract and main body of the paper each stand alone?

Are the graphics and tables clear and their captions self-explanatory?